[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3058-H3062]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTERNET ACCESS CHARGE PROHIBITION ACT OF 2000
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1291) to prohibit the imposition of access charges on
Internet service providers, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1291
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Internet Access Charge
Prohibition Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF CHARGES ON PROVIDERS OF INTERNET
ACCESS SERVICE.
Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
254) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(l) Prohibition of Charges on Internet Service
Providers.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (b)(4) or (d)
or any other provision of this title, the Commission shall
not impose on any provider of Internet access service (as
such term is defined in section 231(e)) any contribution for
the support of universal service that is based on a measure
of the time that telecommunications services are used in the
provision of such Internet access service.
``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall preclude the Commission from imposing access charges on
the providers of Internet telephone services, irrespective of
the type of customer premises equipment used in connection
with such services.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
General Leave
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 1291.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes in support of the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1291, the Internet
Access Charge Protection Act of 2000, and I urge my colleagues today to
show their support for this important pro-consumer legislation.
A number of Members have made this floor vote possible, and I would
like to begin by noting their contributions. The gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton) is the author of this most important legislation.
He has identified the significance of this issue and has worked hard
with the committee to ensure that the bill is balanced and represents a
continued contribution to the public interest.
Let me also commend the leadership of the House, who showed an early
and critical interest in bringing this legislation to the floor today.
Finally, as always, let me note the work of the bipartisan leadership
of our Committee on Commerce, its chairman, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Bliley) and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), both of whom always contribute to the
bipartisan spirit by which we bring legislation important to the Nation
on telecommunication matters to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, this bill represents the best interests of this body. No
matter how complex an issue is and no matter how controversial it may
be, this institution can find a way to craft a balanced bill which
serves the interests of consumers and of the technologies.
Over the years, the Committee on Commerce has labored hard to provide
for universal access to the Nation's telephone network. While
competition and innovation have been the hallmark of telecommunications
policy, so too has universal service. We have balanced these goals over
the decades, and we will do so again today with this legislation that
is before us.
More to the point, H.R. 1291 will preclude the Federal Communications
Commission from imposing permanent charges on Internet service
providers when those charges are intended for the support of universal
service. At the same time, it is important to note that this bill will
permit the Committee on Commerce and the FCC to continue to
[[Page H3059]]
consider the implications of the growth of Internet telephony,
particularly its long-term implications on consumer access to the
telephone network.
This is a critical issue, and yet we know so little about what it
means for those who depend upon affordable access to telecommunications
service. The FCC, for example, has advised Congress that it is too
early to tell what the future holds for universal service as more voice
traffic migrates to Internet telephony. At the same time, the FCC
warned that it does not want to stifle the growth of Web-based
applications such as Internet telephony.
The FCC, in other words, has told us the record on this matter is not
yet complete, nor is Congress prepared with a well-developed record in
this area either. That is why the legislation makes it clear that
Congress is not predetermining the issue of access charges and Internet
telephony.
Let me make it clear to my colleagues, this bill leaves this
important debate for another day. It is neutral on this point. It
decides it neither way and leaves it for a future debate, leaves it for
Congress and the FCC to settle at a future time. But this House can
today and should address the central issue of permanent charges on
Internet data access, and it should do so today.
The Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce has recommended to us
that access to the Internet should remain tax free and unregulated.
Today's monthly Internet access services are affordable and charged on
a flat rate basis. As a result, the Internet is available to children
to surf the Worldwide Web for information, reports and learning. It is
available for e-commerce businesses to grow and expand without the
burden of permanent charges. This bill ensures that that affordable
access is continued on into the future. H.R. 1291 will help ensure that
this affordable access is the rule, not the exception.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1291. The bill is
intended to make sure that the individual who logs on to the Internet
will not be charged by the minute for the privilege of doing so. That
is a worthy goal. I would observe, however, that the situation before
us is still somewhat Kafkaesque and does indeed participate of the
rather wry humor of that kind of story.
I would note that one of the things that has triggered our interest
in this matter has been a story that has been going around on the
Internet about a Congressman by the name of Schnell who has a piece of
legislation which says that people will be charged by the minute for
the privilege of using Internet. I would note that Mr. Schnell is
entirely fictitious, and I am curious why we are responding to an
imaginary piece of legislation which is sponsored by a fictitious
Congressman who does not exist?
I would note that many Congressional offices have been bombarded with
an insidious e-mail campaign over the past year denouncing the
fictitious legislation introduced by Mr. Schnell, who does not exist,
which would accomplish precisely the opposite result of the bill we
consider today.
I only hope that the passage of H.R. 1291 will finally extinguish
this cybermyth for once and all. I am not convinced, however, that
mounting a massive legislative counterattack on a fictitious bill
introduced by a make-believe Congressman is the best use of the time of
this House, particularly when the subject of that bogus bill, if it
were actually introduced, is so contrary to the public interest, that
it would have zero chance of success in this legislative body.
My puzzlement extends further to the speed with which the leadership
has rushed this legislation to the floor. What we are considering today
is a fabricated solution to an imaginary problem, yet the leadership
seems to believe that this virtual bill is so important that the
Committee on Commerce was asked to dispense with the regular order and
bypass subcommittee consideration.
I find it quite amazing that a phantom Congressman by the name of
Schnell has more success in jumpstarting the legislative process than
those of us here by actual election of the people. I only regret that
Congressman Schnell is not a conferee on some of the more important
legislation currently languishing in the conferences between the House
and the Senate.
Certainly our constituents should know that the Congress has no
intention of installing a meter on their use of the Internet and that
this legislation will alleviate their concern in that regard, even
though it is prompted by the existence, as I have said, of a fictitious
bill sponsored by a nonexistent Congressman.
{time} 1030
However, I am disappointed that the majority refuses to seize an
opportunity here to address a greater and a more genuine threat to
consumer pocketbooks; that is, the very real possibility that new
services such as Internet telephony may evade the responsibility of
contributing to support the Universal Service Fund, a fund that ensures
that all Americans have access to affordable telephone service.
These services will continue to migrate from traditional networks to
the Internet and unless we act, the Universal Service Fund will be left
to wither on the vine. That spells significant trouble for local phone
rates for all consumers, but particularly for those who live in rural
areas and the working poor or those who live in big cities.
I would observe these are the same Americans who are stuck on the
wrong side of the digital divide and are least able to take advantage
of high-tech alternatives. Unfortunately, in our haste to get this
legislation to the floor that solves, as I have mentioned, an imaginary
problem, we squandered the opportunity to address one that is all too
real, and that is the prices which Americans will pay for local
telephone service if today's disparate regulatory treatment is
permitted to continue.
Whether a service is offered by the Internet or through a traditional
telephone network, the attendant obligations to support the universal
service should be the same. I hope the majority will address this
serious inequity with due haste so that the American people can be duly
protected against the sharp rise in the price for one of their most
essential communications needs, and that is plain, old-fashioned
telephone service.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Congressman Schnell may indeed be
a bogus Congressman but the issue is not bogus. There are real lawyers
litigating in the courts on this issue today, and real debate before
the FCC.
This bill puts an end to the debate and protects the Internet from
per minute charges for all of those who have affordable access today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a real Congressman, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a dear friend and the author of the
legislation.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, we have all received thousands and thousands
of e-mails from our constituents who have been outraged about erroneous
reports that Congress was soon going to consider Congressman Schnell's
bill H.B. 602P, which purportedly would impose a surcharge on literally
every e-mail sent by an individual. Yes, yes, that rumor is false but
around the same time another e-mail campaign suggested that the FCC was
in fact going to impose a per minute access fee on Internet use, and
again our constituents flooded our offices with e-mails to express
their outrage.
It is undisputed that the FCC's unelected bureaucrats currently do
have the power to authorize permitted access charges on Internet use,
their claims that they have no intention of doing so disregarded. As we
all know, the road to hell was paved with good intentions, and one need
look no further than the e-rate tax to know how the FCC's unelected
bureaucrats have recently used their authority to increase the
Government's take by a billion dollars through an increase on every
American's long distance charges.
The question is this: Should we trust the unelected bureaucrats at
the FCC
[[Page H3060]]
to keep their hands out of the pockets of Internet users, or should
Congress pull the plug once and for all?
Our constituents have e-mailed us. They have talked to us through
letters to the editor. They have come to our town meetings and they
have said that they want us to pull the plug once and for all. That is
why we need to pass this legislation this morning.
H.R. 1291 will prevent a stop-watch from being placed on the Internet
so that our constituents are not charged by the minute when they surf
the Web or when they e-mail their friends, families, customers or even
us, Members of Congress, for that matter.
Our constituents are already paying for the phone service and a
monthly fee usually to their Internet service provider as well.
Clearly, if our constituents were charged by the minute when they
surfed the Web or e-mailed, this would drastically increase the cost
and dramatically inhibit their use of the Internet, perhaps as much as
$400 over the course of the year.
This would disproportionately impact folks who communicate by e-mail,
particularly families with children in the military overseas, or
children who are in college far away from home, brothers and sisters,
families who are scattered across our Nation, even around the globe,
and seniors on fixed incomes who have begun to communicate by e-mail to
their grandkids.
We cannot let this happen and this bill would prevent it. I am
pleased that 141 of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle have
cosponsored this legislation.
I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell) for all their efforts to ensure that this bill is on the floor
today. I introduced it almost a year and a half ago and I am pleased to
say we hope to pass it this morning.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1291, the Internet
Access Charge Prohibition Act. Last week, this Congress voted
overwhelmingly to extend the moratorium on Internet taxes by 5 years.
This was an important first step in our efforts to address the
recommendations of the Electronic Commerce Advisory Commission Report,
the Gilmore Commission report.
Today we are taking another important step in advancing the
Commission's recommendations to prevent the Federal Government from
imposing charges on Internet access. An important component of the
eContract2000 unveiled last week was to expand digital opportunities
for all Americans. The Internet provides new and exciting opportunities
for all Americans to communicate, learn and to be entertained. It is
the engine of our economic growth, but it is also a force for freedom
and opportunity. Banning taxes and fees on Internet access helps ensure
that this opportunity is available at the lower cost to more consumers.
One of the main reasons that the Internet has grown so quickly has been
the relative lack of taxes and regulations. In our eContract, we
promise to stick to the principle that freedom, not government
intervention, is the answer to maintaining and expanding that growth.
This bill is part of that promise.
Mr. Speaker, some may be disappointed that this bill does not address
other related telecommunications issues, which are more complex and
very controversial. As with any bill, the fact that Congress has not
addressed an issue today does not mean that it will not address it in
the future. There is a time and place for Congress to address those
questions more thoroughly and with more reasoned thought. Silence by
Congress on these other complex and controversial issues should not be
interpreted as anything other than that they are complex and
controversial issues.
H.R. 1291 is intended as a simple, straightforward bill designed to
ban access charges on the Internet. Please join me today in voting to
keep the Internet free of excessive taxes, fees and regulations so that
we can provide more digital opportunities for more Americans.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, we are here on the House floor today
debating a bill that flew through the Committee on Commerce, skipping a
subcommittee markup in order to address some Internet access charge
issues. Now many Members have received letters about a bill that would
impose a modem tax, a per-minute-fee on e-mail or consumers' general
Internet use. This fictitious bill sponsored by the equally fictitious
Representative Schnell purports to impose new fees on Internet use.
The proposal here on the floor, which is styled as a remedy to any
chance that the FCC might some day permit access charges to be imposed
on Internet service providers, is also a work of fiction. This is not a
bill that we should send on to President Clinton. This is a bill that
should be sent over to the Federal Trade Commission for false
advertising.
This bill does not prohibit per minute access charges on Internet
service providers. Let me repeat that thought. This bill does not
prohibit per minute access charges on Internet service providers. This
bill only prohibits access charges that are for universal service to
help poor people, to help rural Americans. That is the only thing that
it prohibits.
The only thing that this bill prohibits is for charges to be assessed
that ensures that inner-city residents who cannot afford phone service
are given access to it; that ensures that rural Americans who have
always been given subsidies through the universal service charge are
prohibited from looking at this as a source of revenues in order to
help those rural Americans, in order to help those inner-city Americans
be given access to phone service.
This bill only prohibits access charges that help those people.
Representative Schnell, this fictitious Congressman to whom we are
responding right now, his idea, his vision of not helping those poor
people is alive and well in this bill on the floor here today. Under
this bill, access charges would be permitted as long as they do not go
to universal service. In other words, access charges levied by local
phone companies to recoup their costs or for profit for themselves are
fully permitted under this bill.
So this is a great moment here for the Congress? We are going to
prohibit anything from being done for poor people or rural Americans
for their phone service, but we are going to make sure and protect the
phone companies so that they can make more profits. I think this is an
emergency bill of the highest and most important, paramount interest if
that is why we are out here, just to help phone companies and to make
sure that poor people cannot be helped.
Since today there is a roaring debate about whether and, if so, how
much of today's access charges actually support universal service, the
prohibition contained in the bill actually prohibits very little. Any
Internet companies that think that today's bill codifies the Internet
access charge exemption are quite mistaken. We are not. Phone companies
can still tip them upside down under this bill.
In addition, the second part of the bill that gives the FCC a big
legislative wink to look at access charges on Internet telephone
providers is also something that is very questionable.
I offered an amendment in the committee to prohibit the FCC from
authorizing per minute charges on Internet telephone calls. It would
have allowed a flat rate fee for universal service so that all
competitors contributed to universal service but would have banned per
minute charges for Internet telephone service. I believe we need to
safeguard the flat rate nature of the Internet for consumers. At the
full committee markup, I was told that prohibiting per minute charges
on Internet telephone calls was premature, premature. Why on earth
would we ever want to permit the FCC from allowing per minute charges
or per minute fees on the Internet for anything? When would this be a
good idea? The only people who want per
[[Page H3061]]
minute charges on Internet telephone calls are those who do not want to
compete in the marketplace against flat rate telephone calls, and that
is why this bill is out here on the floor.
Moreover, creating a glaring savings clause in the bill for per
minute charges on Internet telephone calls ignores the fact that
assessing per minute charges would pose a huge privacy issue. Who is
going to monitor someone's Internet usage to see whether their bits are
e-mail bits, which are Web surfing bits and which are telephone calls?
Is the FCC going to be checking out every one of our phone bills to see
which one of us is using it for which?
I think we can codify the existing Internet access exemption, but
this bill only does part of it. Moreover, I think that we can codify
the existing Internet charge access exemption, but this bill only does
part of it.
{time} 1045
Moreover, I think we need to move quickly to prohibit per minute
charges for Internet telephone calls, which this bill specifically
fails to do. That failure is very, very troubling for the future of the
Internet's flat rate pricing structure, and one that every high-tech
company and Internet consumer should take notice of. This is not a good
bill. This heads in just the opposite direction of where we should be
heading with the Internet, the flat rate system we have had for the
last 13 years. A no vote is justified.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I would like to join other Members in support of the bill offered by
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), as it was originally
introduced.
Avoiding per-minute charges for Internet access service, as we have
since 1987, remains a worthwhile objective. How we treat Internet
telephony will dictate the extent to which millions of Americans choose
an affordable, yet innovative, alternative to traditional telephone
services today.
This is why I share the view of others that the SEC should not rush
in and impose access charge regimes on providers of Internet telephone
services. Access charges were designed in the wake of the break-up of
AT&T to require long distance providers a means to compensate the local
telephone monopoly.
The FCC should carefully study the issue and reform today's current
access charge regime before it rushes in to impose old regulations on
new Internet applications.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1291, and
congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for
his leadership. I believe Congress is well-intentioned today by not
allowing the FCC the ability to impose per minute charges on Internet
access services.
I want to say so long to Congressman Snell and his 602-P legislation.
I am sure everyone has received hundreds if not thousands of e-mails,
like we have in our office, concerning this fictitious Member of
Congress and this fictitious legislation.
Mr. Speaker, in our markup my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell), our ranking member, said sometimes this Congress does
better by sponsoring fictitious bills by fictitious Members than they
do real life legislation. H.R. 1291 is real life legislation, but I
agree with the gentleman, oftentimes. Hopefully the voters would not
have elected Congressman Schnell, anyway, if he had introduced such a
bill.
We all know that per minute access would devastate the Internet. The
explosive growth in data traffic has clearly demonstrated that per
minute access charges would quickly drive consumers off the Internet. I
do not believe that the intention of anyone here is to do that. We need
to expand the Internet and continue its growth, and allow people to
expand the ability that it provides.
Because access fees were originally designed for voice traffic, there
was little concern about adding a few cents per minute to fund the
maintenance of the telecommunications infrastructure. Unfortunately,
the length of consumers' calls differs from the amount of time
consumers may be online, and access charges were designed for the
typical 5-minute phone call. They were not intended for the 45 minutes
average that our constituents spend online on the Internet.
I do have some concern, and I know we tried to address it in the
committee, about the impact this would have on the solvency of the
universal service fund. We do not know what telephone service will look
like 5 years from now, but hopefully this Congress will be responsive
and will pass this bill today.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, we have here a bill which has merit, limited. We have a
bill which is directed at solving a problem which really does not
exist. We have need to address the major problem of the universal
service fund, which may very well be drying up under this, which will
result in significant cost increases to inner city dwellers and to
residents of rural areas.
It is a shame that we are not addressing the more important questions
that we need to address, rather than to respond in this hasty fashion
to a problem which really does not exist.
The first application for this kind of relief had begun very shortly
after the FCC made Internet charges no longer possible back in the
1980s. They have had many applications for this kind of thing since and
have never once accorded any reality to those charges, so I think it
would be better that we address real problems rather than fictitious
ones.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me first point out that there is no contribution to
universal service right now in any access charge assessed against
Internet users for data services. This is not occurring. The FCC has an
exemption on the books right now that prevents such access charges for
universal service. Universal service is not threatened by this bill
today, and no one should feel otherwise.
Secondly, there is no Member of the House who has proposed to make
access charges for data services on the Internet support universal
service. The only person who suggested that is this artificial bogus
Congressman, Congressman Schnell, that is the subject of some e-mail
conversation on the web.
Third, if there was an opportunity to create a digital divide here,
it would be in the case if Congressman Schnell or some litigator in the
Eighth Circuit or some litigator at the FCC ever succeeded in changing
the FCC's exemption.
If ever these litigators succeeded in assessing per minute charges
for data use of the Internet, indeed, we would be helping to create a
digital divide. It is the absence of per minute charges on the Internet
that is making the Internet affordable to poor people, to children, to
struggling new-coming businesses on the web; to the growth, in fact, of
the electronic commerce in America and across the world.
It is the absence of per minute charges that is helping us to make
sure that a digital divide does not happen when it comes to access to
the Internet for children, libraries, hospitals, schools, for people in
general in this country.
Today we codify that rule. In this bill we say never shall the FCC
assess per minute charges for access to the Internet for data services.
That is a good thing. We ought to put this to rest. This bill does it.
I commend my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for doing
so.
We leave to a future debate the question of telephone service, where
indeed universal service is critically important. We leave that debate
open. We make no judgment. We are neutral on that point.
This is a good bill. It deserves the support of the House. I urge its
final passage.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the bill considered by the House today
should put to rest
[[Page H3062]]
any undue concern on the part of the American people that Congress
intends to tax their Internet access. By keeping Internet service
unregulated and unburdened by taxation, we have allowed millions of
Americans to access these services and, in turn, created a boom in
electronic commerce that has transformed the way we live and do
business today in this country.
H.R. 1291 reaffirms the decision made more than a decade ago that
access fees should not be imposed on Internet service providers. This
has allowed consumers in droves to access the Internet on an affordable
flat-rate basis, rather than a per-minute basis. It's simple economics:
the less you tax supply, the more consumer demand you create.
I recognize that parts of this bill might create the mistaken
impression that Congress is encouraging Federal regulators to impose
access fees on Internet telephone services. I want to make clear that
this bill is no way meant to encourage the FCC to apply existing access
charges to providers of Internet telephone services. Rather than pile
on additional charges for Internet users, we ought to first figure out
how to reform telephone access charges as Congress instructed the FCC
to do in 1996. The last thing we want to do is impose charges that will
discourage consumers from embracing the Internet and the innovative
services that will revolutionize the way we live and work.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1291, the Internet
Access Charge Prohibition Act. This legislation will ensure that
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are not required to pay access
charges to connect to the Internet. As a result, consumers will
continue to have lower prices for their Internet access.
In this Information Age, the number of consumers who use the Internet
daily for their work and education continues to grow. This legislation
will ensure that Internet access remains reasonable and accessible for
all Americans.
In 1983, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established
rules which require long distance companies to pay ``access charges''
to local telephone companies for connecting a long-distance call to
local telephone networks. These access charges are paid to both
networks where the call originates and where the call ends. In
addition, part of these access charges help to pay for the Universal
Service Fund which subsidizes the cost of telephone services to rural
and high-cost areas and low-cost individuals. In addition, this
Universal Service Fund helps to provide low-cost Internet connections
for schools and libraries. The current average access charge is 2.4
cents-per-minute which is paid by consumers.
The FCC however, does not permit local telephone companies to impose
these access charges to ISPs because they classify these ISPs as
``enhanced service providers.'' Recently, the FCC reviewed this matter
again and determined that ISPs should continue to be exempt from these
access charges. In May 1997, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit upheld this FCC decision and this decision remains in effect
today.
Regrettably, there is a persistent rumor on the Internet that these
fees are going to be imposed on all electronic mail (E-mail) messages.
In my congressional district, I have heard from many constituents that
they are concerned about the burden that these fees would impose upon
them. This legislation, H.R.. 1291, would prohibit the FCC from
imposing any per-minute access fees on ISPs if such fees are going to
be dedicated to the federal Universal Service Fund activities. This
legislation will permanently protect consumers who use the Internet
daily. I am pleased that Congress has acted to provide this common-
sense consumer protection to all Internet users.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill, H.R. 1291.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join other
Members in applauding the intention of Mr. Upton's bill as introduced.
Avoiding per-minute charges for Internet access services is a very
worthy goal. The use of per-minute access charges for the Internet has
plagued the development of the Internet is no many other countries. We
should do what is needed to continue a flat-rate charging mechanism.
However, H.R. 1291 also includes a ``Rule of Construction'' that I
find a little troubling. The provision says that nothing in the bill
precludes the FCC from imposing access charges on Internet telephone
providers. This refers to the charges long-distance telephone companies
must pay to local telephone companies for connecting a long-distance
call to local telephone networks--both where the call originates and
where it terminates.
I don't believe that this provision is intended to encourage the FCC
to rush in and impose today's access charge regime on providers of
Internet telephone services. Nor do I think the FCC has plans to impose
any access charges at the present time.
Still, given the wording of this provision, I think it's important to
emphasize that an imposition of old-style access charges on Internet
telephony would be short-sighted. Access charges are based on a
distinction between local and long-distance that the Internet is
rendering irrelevant. The FCC should carefully study the issue and
reform today's current access charge regime before it rushes in to
impose old regulation on new Internet applications.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1291, the Internet
Access Charge Prohibition Act of 2000, and I urge my colleagues to join
me in supporting this bill.
The Committee on Commerce last week reported H.R. 1291, a bill that
was introduced by my friend and colleague from Michigan, Mr. Upton.
His bill, H.R. 1291, will help to ensure consumers continue to have
affordable access to the Internet. More to the point, his bill will
block the FCC's ability to impose per-minute charges on consumers'
Internet access services, when those charges are intended for support
of universal service.
In doing so, this bill will help preserve the flat-rate pricing
structure Americans enjoy today for their Internet services. Flat-rate
pricing, as opposed to per-minute charging, is one of the reasons the
Internet has flourished in this country, and why Internet usage is so
high here, compared to other countries.
Preserving that flat-rate pricing scheme is a commendable goal, and I
think Mr. Upton for his efforts in that regard. The Report of the
Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce, chaired by my good friend,
the governor of Virginia, Mr. Gilmore, recommended that Congress
deregulate Internet access services. That is the intention of H.R.
1291.
I note that some have raised concerns that the bill could be used to
impose per-minute access charges on provides of Internet telephony.
That is not the intention, nor the effect, of the bill.
The FCC is not encouraged by this bill to extend today's access
charge regime on providers of Internet telephony. That regime was
devised in a very different time, for a very different situation.
access charges were designed in the early 1980's to compensate the
local telephone companies for the use of their local loop facilities.
These charges are predicated on a traditional distinction between local
and long-distance services that the Internet is making irrelevant.
Choice telephone service is merely one type of application over the
Internet. Internet voice should no more be subject to per-minute access
charges than Internet access services. If we want to avoid per-minute
charges on the Internet, we should avoid such charges for all Internet
applications.
In the meantime, the House should begin the process now of ensuring
that consumers can continue to have affordable, flat-rate prices for
access to the Internet. I urge my colleagues to support the bill before
us today.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1291, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof), the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was
passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________